2005 07-14 Special
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Special MeetinalWorkshop
Julv 14. 2005.
A special meeting/workshop of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July
14, 2005. was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Tara Green, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X David Moe
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
X Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this Special Meeting/Workshop of
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for July 14th, 2005. We will begin with a
roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Second Item is the adoption of the agenda. Since we only have one item
and we are not likely to rearrange it, I will consider it adopted, unless I hear some great
objection.
Rohm: Makes sense.
Item 3:
Review of the North Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Application:
Zaremba: Okay. And, then, the real purpose of the meeting is Item 3, a review of North
Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This is not officially a Public Hearing,
which theoretically means there would not be comment from the public, but since it is a
workshop and there are not a whole lot of people here, I don't see any problem being a
little bit informal. If somebody has something they simply must add, if you would raise
your hand, I will try and recognize you and work you into the conversation. And let's
begin with remarks from the staff. Brad or Anna, who is starting? Brad. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: I'll start and Anna is going to sit here brain dead for a little bit, I guess.
I'm only repeating what she already told me earlier, so --
Moe: That would now be on the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 2 of 33
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess I will just sort of casually walk through this. I mean if -- we
are happy to use this as just a dialogue between you and staff and however else you
want to handle it, but I had put a little bit more content to the agenda sheet that I hadn't
given you and so thought maybe -- I'm very in mind that you were very clear at your
meeting last week that you wanted to be out of here at nine zero zero. So, we will try to
move through this as quickly as we can, but in terms of just what is this, reviewing the
application, I think, Commissioner Moe, you might have been the only one that wasn't at
our workshop -- I think Commissioner Rohm and Zaremba were at our workshop, so
there might not be too much need to do that, other than to say that the Comprehensive
Plan amendment application, we have, you know, our city process that we are going
through and there are, as you know, only two opportunities in a year to do map
amendments and we have received two other Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications from private parties, just so you know, and I think we are proceeding on the
schedule that we should, because of the city initiated ours first, but there are these two
other parties waiting in the wings that when this goes through, I thought if you could be
thinking about that and, Anna, too, as far as how we want to move those on. I think in
the past we just had, you know, a set of hearings that have only been Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications, separate from your regular agenda, and that's probably
what we can anticipate, but we would have, potentially, at that first meeting we would
have the north Meridian hearing and, then, we would have these other two.
Zaremba: Refresh my memory. The most recent one would have been the project on
Eagle and Pine. They were asking for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. I'm
assuming the City Council took our recommendation to approve that or what happened
with that? And when is six months from then?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yeah. Actually, the state statute says six months from your
recommendation to the City Council, so -- which would be next week would be six
months, believe it or not.
Zaremba: That was six months ago?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah.
Zaremba: I was thinking two months.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. But, yes, the City Council did approve it.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: Even if they had approved it, the six months language kicks in. The state
requirement only limits how often you can recommend approval for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment. It does not regulate how often the City Council can consider
Comprehensive Plan amendments or approve them.
~
'\
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 3 of 33
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: And I thought we would just wait for an agenda where there was nothing on
the agenda and a week where there is --
Zaremba: Where we don't have any applications for development and --
Canning: And, then, we could do it at that one.
Zaremba: Yeah. That's August 33rd; right?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Okay. So, we got those applications kind of hanging out there,
just so you know. Then, the area of city impact application, if you recommend approval
of north Meridian amendment and it goes onto City Council and they approve it, then,
an application would continue with Ada County to negotiate the changes to the area of
city impact that are in this.
Zaremba: So, the timing on that one is that we probably would want to beat Star's
impact hearing on -- in September before the county? Star is --
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Zaremba: -- asking for some of the same area that we are talking about. I think. Aren't
they? Is that what I'm interpreting here?
Hawkins-Clark: No. They -- Ada County is hearing Star's for the areas that are not
under dispute with Eagle, because the city of Eagle and the city of Star have some
overlapping areas where they both have asked for an area of city impact.
Zaremba: We are likely to have a dispute with Star and Eagle over the area between
Chinden and the bench, too, aren't we?
Hawkins-Clark: That's not expected, because staff's understanding, anyway, is that city
of Eagle has agreed that the area between the Phyllis Canal and Chinden, that they
would -- probably that they are not going to dispute that. So, they, actually, don't have
an application and yet -- but we do have a couple property owners here tonight and
that's one of the things on the agenda further down, but who are interested in being
added to Meridian's area of city impact that is north of the canal and Eagle has not said
that they are comfortable with that, at least to my knowledge. This last Tuesday,
actually, Eagle City Council, as just as a discussion item on their agenda, talked about
that area north of Chinden that was in their request. You know, their original
applications they did want to go to Chinden, but their City Council backed up Mayor
Merrill, who had met with Mayor de Weerd and talked about that area and said that
probably makes sense, but Meridian requests it, because frontage on both sides of
Chinden and probably the biggest reason is sewer, you know, just -- Meridian --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 4 of 33
Zaremba: Sewer and fire and I think the zip code goes there as well, not that that
couldn't change, I guess.
Hawkins-Clark: But your point about Star, they, to my knowledge, have not -- they
haven't requested -- yeah. No. The city of Star's area of impact, their September 1 st
hearing at Ada County, at least the map that I have, they do not go east of -- where are
we at here? Star -- well, yeah, there would be, because here is McDermott.
Canning: There is no overlap on the south side of Chinden on that little trunk that --
between the Phyllis Canal and Chinden toward the west side of the property. My
understanding was that they had dropped that from their request at our request,
because it was in our fire district. So, I don't think that that area is in dispute anymore.
Zaremba: So, that means we are not under any time constraints to have an attitude
before anybody else's hearing. We are just up to making our own decision; right?
Okay. Well, sorry to interrupt.
Hawkins-Clark: Besides the fact that -- yeah, I mean I just -- you know, the state does
allow cities to overlap and all that. I mean the Council can approve, technically
overlapping areas of city impact. I don't know that they have ever done that, but it is
possible. I think they have kind of stayed away from that, but --
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: So, I thought maybe I would just go through a few of the -- starting on
page three of the packet -- I guess not page three of the packet, page three of the sheet
titled Comprehensive Plan amendment application. The page number is at the bottom.
Zaremba: Three of ten?
Hawkins-Clark: Three of ten. Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. And in the middle of that sheet we have got what staff feels is
probably the three main requests that would be in this application. A is to expand the
impact boundary north of Chinden to the rim and, then, west to McDermott Road to
Can-Ada. And B, designate the land use -- new land uses and policies within the
expansion areas and, then, amend existing land uses. And C, to create a new
circulation map and those -- and, then, some new transportation policies that would
address alternative transportation, as well as, you know, our vehicular transportation.
So -- and, again, this is where staff is moving with this. You, as the Commission,
please, if you have things that you think we should be looking at, you want us to add, us
to research, please, give guidance. The area of city impact boundaries were -- that are
in this application were given to us right on up by Mayor and Council, essentially. In
part because of requests that Meridian received from property owners in those areas.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetingIWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 5 of 33
Canning: That is particularly true for the north area. I think the west area there is some
question -- they wanted staff to look at it, but I'm not -- I have never gotten the feeling
that Council was adamant one way or the other about whether we are included. So, I
think that that would be an area of -- for the planning and zoning Commission to
consider and have perhaps more thoughts on whether or not it should even be included.
I think we just recognize that it was four square miles out there that nobody has ever
talked about and there was a time somebody thought about it in one fashion or another.
Moe: Just a couple of questions. Because I wasn't at the -- the other workshop and
whatnot, I will be the one that's ignorant here somewhat. North to the rim, I assume, is,
then -- the Phyllis Canal is right at that point, then; correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Moe: Okay. And, then, from that point we, then, are to the river beyond to the north;
correct? I mean the river is north of that point; right?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Moe: Okay. I'm just trying to make sure I remember where we are at.
Hawkins-Clark: I would say that's a good point for me. I don't have enough copies for
the public, but there is -- oh, here.
Moe: Okay. This is good.
Hawkins-Clark: It's pretty small, but maybe help you get a sense for the area.
Moe: Yes, it will. It's perfect.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. So, yeah, there is one change to that map that was presented at
the workshop in May. Excuse me. Is -- if you look at the corner of Linder Road and
Chinden and just go north from there. If you look at this 11-by-17 map, that was on the
dias this evening, and you compare that to this eight and a half by eleven that I just
handed out, you will see that at that corner there is a little chunk taken out. The
Almaden Subdivision, two and a half to five acre lots, county subdivision, we removed --
several of those property owners have expressed concern and really do not want to be
in Meridian's area of city impact and in many ways it probably does make more sense,
then, to be in Eagle anyway, eventually, because of the -- you know, the large lot sizes
and there is an identification geographically with them. So, also in the application, after
that point there was several assumptions that are listed there. land use assumptions
and transportation assumptions that we have been making for the last few months. I
won't go over each one of those, but did want to point out that if you -- I think those are
fairly important, so if you think that one of those really stands out to you that should not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 6 of 33
be a key assumption as a part of this plan, it would be important to let us know early.
So, I think if you're okay, we will just spend a little time actually looking at the map itself.
Zaremba: I might comment or give a personal opinion about the western boundary that
we were talking about. It's -- moving Meridian's area of impact over to Can-Ada follows
the county line. I'm trying to think of what the logic would be for that four square miles
to be attached to anybody else. It can't be attached to Caldwell or Nampa, because it's
not in Canyon County. Theoretically, Star could eventually spread there, but --
Rohm: Yeah. I was going to ask that question. Is that the legalities of it, which a city
can't expand beyond county borders?
Borup: I don't believe so.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup has joined us and are you saying it is all right for a city
to cross county lines?
Canning: Yes, it is. And it is in the Star fire district. That's the other consideration.
)
{
Zaremba: The four square miles that we are talking along -- between McDermott and
Can-Ada are in Star Fire District.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I was told by city of Star staff that they -- they have no interest,
they have -- their council has not expressed any interest in going south of Chinden at
this point. You know, I mean as Council's change, who knows, but, you know, at this
point city of Star doesn't have sewer even south of the river. So, you know, they have
got -- they would have a long way to go and to demonstrate to Ada County that they
have the authority to provide urban services, you know, so -- and, also, in terms of the
fire, at least our fire chief told me that if -- if a city annexes into a fire district that is not
their own, that other fire district traditionally recognizes that -- that since it's now
annexed into a neighboring jurisdiction, that they release those from their district, from
the fire district.
Zaremba: That's both a service and a taxing issue, I would assume.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yeah. In terms of bonding and the rates at which -- right. Yeah.
I -- that issue is being dealt with right now between Eagle and Meridian on the north
side of Chinden. So, we may want more as time goes by, because of that example, but
-- but I think Anna brings up -- and it is a good point, that it is a different fire district out
there, but--
Rohm: Currently.
Hawkins-Clark: Currently it is. Right. All land needs to be designated in some rural or
urban fire district, so -- yeah. But it is a little bit strange. I mean you have these four
square miles that, you know, are out there bounded by Canyon County on two sides
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 7 of 33
and a state highway on the -- on one side. So, the larger planning question is, you
know, is it appropriate for it to always just remain Ada County and never be annexed
into anyone's impact area. So, those are kind of discussions that police --
Rohm: From my perspective, the growth that we have seen in the north area of impact
has been so significant that it's not beyond comprehension that that expansion will
continue and probably go right into that four square miles at such time that it is sewered
and just a continuation of the growth that we have seen.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Rohm: I wouldn't be surprised.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Our Public Works Department is under contract with JUB
Engineers as we speak to do a sewer study of that four square miles. So, at this point
Ada County would not accept an area of city impact application, if you will, or
negotiation, until we can clearly demonstrate that we have the ability service it. I don't --
Anna may correct me, but I don't think -- they don't require a full-blown study, but they
do need something committing from the City Engineer that, yes, if we are going to give
you this in the area of city impact, you need to demonstrate to us that you can service
this. So, that's the reason for the study, which isn't anticipated to be complete until at
this point November. So, that, in and of itself, if you were to recommend that we
proceed with these four square miles, in here, it may be a timing issue there, because
we would need to show Ada County that we can provide sewer out there. Yeah. Out
here.
Zaremba: Do we have the opinions of -- well, I guess the only opinion that hasn't been
mentioned would be the police department. I was at a meeting today where the
comment was made by the police department about how difficult it is to serve two sides
of a freeway and if McDermott is going to be that type of a transportation system, the
police department may wish we were not looking at those four square miles.
Hawkins-Clark: Very good point, in terms of getting our police department's input on
this whole process. We had not received anything from them yet.
Zaremba: Yeah. Just a thought. I mean to me it seems logical, but we know as the
valley grows, a lot of this area is going to fill in. The only other option would be to say
that there is some mechanism to preserve a green area and it isn't ever going to be part
of a city, but at present there is not a mechanism for that either, other than voluntary
and, you know, people -- I guess they sell development rights to the nature conservancy
or something like that.
Canning: And that's what I was going to say. The state has enabled the use of transfer
development rights, so that is a tool to consider. How well it would go over in Ada
County or with our Council I don't know, but that is something that you can't --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 8 of 33
Zaremba: Or having us decide on behalf of all the people in those four square miles
that that's what they are going to do and I'm not sure that's the right thing. I wouldn't
want to take that attitude.
Canning: Well, yes, we should probably do -- it would be appropriate to do more public
participation before you did that. But that could certainly be something you recommend
in the study as well, if you don't want to go that way, in including it in the area of city
impact, you could recommend putting it in a referral area or something like that or
sending area for transferred development rights and direct staff to work on the transfer
of development rights program for that area. You'd have to set up a receiving area as
well.
Zaremba: I don't know about the others, but I guess my opinion would be if -- if, on the
one hand, the assumption is that area will develop to urban uses, it makes sense to
have it be part of Meridian. If it's going to do something else, then, it doesn't need to be
part of Meridian.
Canning: And those are the things you get to decide. That's why they pay you for the
big bucks.
Zaremba: Thank you so much. I missed my paycheck. Did you get it?
Rohm: Well, it just seems to me that going with what we have seen over the last
number of years, that this north of the freeway development all the way to Chinden has
taken on the development that it has, that as these other square miles to the east fill in,
that's the natural progression, and as long as the JUB study proves out that it's cost
effective to expand sewer and water to those four square miles, it just makes sense that
would be good development ground, from my perspective anyway. So, that being said -
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It's very much a question, as Anna mentioned before, not as
much of -- we didn't get as much feedback from private property owners in that area.
And there are -- there is a couple of dairy operations out in these four square miles.
You know, there is a tree nursery. Some churches. I mean it's clearly dominant ag
uses today, but, you know, just -- I think the dairies and, then, there is a small cemetery
-- I mean there is -- you know, just as far as the land uses that are out there today. And
I think the ~. maybe this idea transfer development rights, since this valley hasn't seen it
that much, that may be something if you want more explanation about how those work
and how they operate, you know, it may be a candidate. But I think tied with that,
maybe we could just go into Highway 16, because we -- you know, we are -- even if you
do recommend that this be part of the area of city impact, our recommendation is that it
remain preserved until we know the alignment of Highway 16.
Rohm: I can tell you at the last workshop I worked at that specific station to those four
square miles and a number of the people that were in attendance were property owners
within that area and I got the feeling for sure that they were very supportive of being
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 9 of 33
included in our area of impact and could see the potential advantages to them as
property owners to be part of our city. So, I thought that was interesting.
",¡
"
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Probably the question I would have on this is why aren't we looking at the area
south of here, from here to the freeway? '
Moe: That's--
Borup: I mean is it considered too large of an area to look at? I mean I think a good --
a good part of the city that's being developed now was in our impact area 20 years ago.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner to clarify --
Zaremba: I'm not sure which area --
Borup: These are four square miles. The other -- from there to the freeway.
Hawkins-Clark: Here is Ustick Road.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: And that's Canyon County.
Borup: Right. I know.
Zaremba: But we already said we can cross county lines.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And the city of Nampa has planned that it's in their
Comprehensive Plan and they have land use designations on it --
Borup: It's in our area of impact?
Hawkins-Clark: It is.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: It's in Nampa's area of impact.
Borup: Well, then, that answers that question. Has that just been recently?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetingIWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 10 of 33
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is.
Moe: This sheet doesn't show that, though.
Borup: I thought like a year ago Nampa had not done that yet.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Right. Compass -- yeah, this data came from Compass and I
think they did not receive updated Canyon County information when this map was
created, probably.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yeah. That's right. Okay.
Borup: And the reason I brought that up is mainly -- or I mean one of the big things for
me was the Can-Ada -- I mean the McDermott trunk line and how far to the west would
that service.
Hawkins-Clark: And Nampa city is currently under contract to build a very sizable lift
station in their north area. It's about 90 percent designed and it would, essentially, be
engineered to handle all that area.
Borup: Clear to McDermott.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Within that area of city impact boundary.
Rohm: Has there been some communication between the city of Nampa and City of
Meridian along that McDermott corridor from Ustick to the freeway? I see where our
map indicates that it's designated as highway corridor on the east side of McDermott,
but is Nampa progressing along the same lines as they have, they so designated in
their area that that -- it's --
Hawkins-Clark: That's a very timely question. Steve Siddoway and I actually did just
meet with Paul Raymond, who is the public works director for the City of Nampa,
yesterday, as well as Norm Holmes, their Planning Director, and at least from those two
staff positions, city of Nampa is not -- they are comfortable with the McDermott
alignment. For them the bigger issue is the interchange at 1-84. That would be a whole
other discussion, but mainly suffice it to say they have the Idaho Center and the auto
mall and the BSU campus, you know, all around that Star, Can-Ada area, and that
campus is expected to have 12,000 students at build out and, you know, the Idaho
Center and just as that place continues, if you get more big box -- they are concerned
about overloading the Garrity interchange.
Rohm: So, they'd probably support the McDermott interchange.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, they actually prefer Star.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meetlng/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 11 of 33
Zaremba: They would like one at Star-Robinson.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah.
Rohm: Is that just one mile east of Garrity?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. As Brad said, the things that are in that mile between Garrity
and Star-Robinson are likely to generate a lot of activity.
Rohm: Well - but you get what - Star is one mile east of Can-Ada and you get the
federal dollars every two miles and any other interchanges are at total local expense.
Zaremba: Actually, that's the state of Idaho. ITO does that.
Rohm: Is that what it is?
Zaremba: When I first started hearing people say that the federal government wouldn't
put interchanges closer than two miles -- I have lived in a number of places where they
are closer than two miles and I went down to the federal highway administration and
asked them where is that rule and they said it's not our rule. They -- every time there is
a request for access, which is how you get an interchange, they go out and they study
how far away the next one is and where the lanes would interweave, but they have no
pre-set conception.
Rohm: Well, I'm glad that you cleared that up, because --
Zaremba: And ITO -
Rohm: Okay. Well - and it's probably pretty fair as a general statement that you
develop every other mile and, then, if, in fact, needed, you fill in the one in the middle.
Zaremba: And, actually, ITO's two miles is a rural two miles. Theoretically, they will
allow them closer than that in urban areas. The Federal Highway Administration has no
such rule. They look at each one individually.
Rohm: Oh, man.
Hawkins-Clark: But to get to the point of your question, Commissioner, yeah, Nampa is
supportive -- at least staff is. They have not designated a preservation corridor, so to
speak. But in terms of what - would they fight the City of Meridian if we sav McDermott
is our preferred alignment. At this point we don't expect to.
Rohm: Thank you. That was the point of the question.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 12 of 33
Zaremba: But I always have more information than you want.
Rohm: No. No. I appreciate it.
Hawkins-Clark: So, I guess while we are talking on that, was there any other questions
from the Commissioners about the purpose of that on this map, this cross-hatched
area? I guess one clarification, as you can see, we -- right now it's mapped at a half
mile either side of McDermott and just so you know, we chose that from a conversation
with Sue Sullivan at ITD and others, who made the point that when they go and do an
environmental impact study, which they are required to do with -- if they build it with
federal money, that they are required, as part of that NIPA EIS process to look at a
broader spectrum than just one specific little lane, if you will. I mean they do have to
take into consideration everything from geology to historic structures and uses, to flood
planes, to seismic zones -- I mean it's an intense list of things they have to look at. And
so it could be that that future alignment weaves a little bit or whatever. So, that's the
reason for that being designated where it is. A few of the -- maybe I'll go -- on the
number three, the first item, there was existing area of city impact land uses and those
are probably pretty obvious to you, but if you were to compare our -- our adopted
Comprehensive Plan today with this proposed one, you will see that -- a couple of main
things to point out. One, is there is no half moon shapes on there. The neighborhood
centers -- today, these three intersections on McMillan Road, here at Meridian, Linder,
and Ten Mile, all have already been zoned C-G, at least at one of the corners, as part of
either Paramount or Lochsa Falls or Bridgetower through the planned development
process. So, we sort of factored that in and, then, also looked at what's the likelihood of
this new interstate, you know, generating some commercial interest and, obviously, it's
usually pretty high and so we may see some commercial demand up in here at one of
these. We have also -- just to go back a little bit, we did designate these floating
interchanges, so -- at Chinden and Ustick, so we were, you know, anticipating that the
amount of commercial office type uses that would go into both the C-G and those areas,
may be enough to meet the demand in this area alone and -- but, again, this is a draft
and it's up for discussion and if you want to go with the half mile, but we felt that, you
know, there -- there was a lot of discussion, particularly Commissioner Rohm and
Zaremba and Borup now at that last round, about the half mile issue, and we did leave it
on at Ustick between Meridian and Linder. The neighborhood center is still designated
there, both on the north and on the south, and it's also still on there over at Heritage
Commons area on Locust Grove. Now having said that, it doesn't mean that some of
those principals of the neighborhood center, in terms of interconnectivity and public
open space and pathway, can't be incorporated at the corners.
Zaremba: That's what I was thinking. The push back has been from the development
community to say they don't think the retail and commercial portions are viable on the
half mile. They would rather see them on the section line roads. But that doesn't stop
us from saying, okay, we are going to -- we are just going to move this theory a half mile
over. We are still going to have the concentric ring of diminishing uses or -- I forget how
we call it, but I have never seen that as being terribly opposed to the original
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 13 of 33
Comprehensive Plan that had them on the half mile, where it's w- I think we can have the
concept and move them to the miles.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. And we would -- at this point that is our intent. I mean to keep a
lot of principals in there.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Hawkins-Clark: So -- the large one on the current Comprehensive Plan, on Chinden we
had -- there was one designated here between Ten Mile and Black Cat and there was
another one designated between Locust Grove and Meridian. The one on Locust Grove
and Meridian, we actually -- excuse me -- retained about half of that neighborhood
center in just -- they had it follow the existing parcel lines. The other half we changed
from mixed use to medium density residential and that, in part, follows an active
application, the Westborough application up there, that's on that Jericho --
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
HawkinswClark: Yeah. The other one on Chinden today is, as I said, between Black Cat
and Ten Mile, that's Brighton Corporation's application is a part of that, the Bainbridge,
that City Council approve a few months ago, and they -- if you may recall, held out
about 60 acres at the corner of Ten Mile and Chinden, which was not part of their
annexation, so -- and some of that mixed use did shift over to this square mile in
Paramount. There is a mixed strip there today that's got mixed community, I think.
Yeah. Mixed used community. There is a 40-acre parcel that's not a part of Paramount
today, right on the southeast corner. Paramount does control a little bit of that, but there
is also some that they don't, so, anyway, those mixed use policies would probably
largely remain the same as today in terms, you know, it's not just straight strip
commercial across there, but that's where we kind of reallocated some of that mixed
use area. Also that intersection, Linder and Chinden, here at the north, there is -- it's a
little bit of a funky piece to work with, because it's so shallow. There is an existing large
lot county sub and, then, a -- some kind of a farm ag building there now and, then, only
about 350, 400 feet and so if you assume, which is probably a fairly safe assumption,
that that intersection is going to be widened at some point and may even have, you
know, a grade level access, you know, ramps, things like that, you know, like an urban
interchange or something, then, you know, you are going to chew up some of that
corner. So, we put a mixed-use neighborhood on it, it's a key area, you know, it's one of
the main -- going to be a large volume intersection. Residential just didn't seem
appropriate, so -- they could still put residential, but -- oh, yeah. And, then, on the east
side of Linder Eagle area of impact is anticipated to also have some commercial there,
so -- don't know if there is any other areas in our current area of impact to point out. We
reflected on this map the -- all of the land uses that -- applications that have been
approved, you know, current zoning is now shown on there. Tried to put schools where
the school district has land. Oh, the wastewater treatment plant, it's about 450 acres
are in the MUWWTP District and -- this map is such small scale, but at the north end
here, Drawbridge Subdivision is being built today, it's 18,000 square foot lots. It's our
,
'4
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetingIWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 14 of 33
estate lot subdivision in north Meridian today. That is one of these five acres across
from Bridgetower. The one behind it is -- was designated in the mixed use and we --
staff has had some communication with them. We changed that to allow for the low
density residential, again, part out of equity, since they are neighbors, you know,
immediately to the east already have been approved that way, but no access as well, so
-- so that is one change. The rest of it we did keep, so there would be no new
residential permitted in that area. There was several comments that we received at the
May open house from folks who have property in this area, who are, frankly, frustrated
and, you know, concerned that they can't get any new residential and the viability of
commercial and industrial uses, which is, basically, what our policy says they need to
have, is not very good, in their opinion. So, the question is, you know -- you know, do
you want to consider changing that -- obviously, the Public Works Department needs to
have some pretty key input into this and we have not met with them so far to get that
conversation. There is a noise and odor study that was done that -- of the plant and,
you know, it shows sort of the impacts of both noise and odor and it, interestingly
enough, follows pretty closely what we have designated here where it sort of gets to a
point of acceptable levels. You know, for humans anyway. But there is a little -- a
possibility that on this west side we shave some of that mixed use area off and allow it
to go to a residential, so -- did you want to add anything on that?
Canning: Brad is also asking for -- as part of this study, we are going to request funds
to do a market absorption in the north Meridian area of nonresidential uses and one of
the key things for this wastewater treatment plant area -- it's always been that they don't
have good enough access to 1-84, thereafter, it's not appropriate. Well, if we assume
that that Highway 16 extension goes in, then, all of a sudden they have pretty great
access to a highway and 1-84. So, it will be interesting to see the results of that. And,
also, just to know whether we have shown enough commercial and office in the north
Meridian area or if we need to get some additional areas in there. And, then, I think the
only other commercial area Brad forgot to talk about is the four square miles right at the
corners. That's kind of a potential little neighborhood center there as well. We made it
very small on the -- Star, on the other side of Chinden, designates a commercial area,
so we have kind of mimicked that on the south side of Chinden.
Zaremba: The study you're talking about to see how much commercial use could be
absorbed there, are you including the four square miles on the west in that?
Canning: Yes.
Zaremba: It just seems to me, along a corridor like that, if we also preserved frontage
roads and things like that, that could be major commercial and industrial development. I
meant that's just an opinion, but, again, from having lived places where I have seen this
happen.
Hawkins-Clark: The market analyst that spoke to, you know, he said these market
absorption studies are pretty broad and it's not like you define here is your -- like a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 15 of 33
transportation study, you know, I mean there is a lot of sort of influences that they look
at regionally. But we will certainly ask them to look at this area in particular.
Zaremba: Well -- and the subject has come up before. One of the applicants one time,
I forget who, in trying to get a residential into the area next to the wastewater treatment,
was telling us that we had far too much set aside for commercial. And not being an
expert, of course, the logic of their numbers, he made it sound logical. But, again, as
Anna said, if -- if there is going to be access to an interstate type roadway within a mile
and a half of this, we could actually make it more attractive by making sure that that
portion of Ustick is wide and amenable to trucks and we can make it happen.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. That's a great point. We were just talking about that before this
meeting and it hadn't really struck me yet, but if this interchange -- if this -- if Highway 16
gets built and they put an interchange at Ustick and if it's two miles spacing, just like 1-
84, yeah, you're correct, this area becomes only a mile away, and may help us justify
some of that area.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Hawkins-Clark: Two or three other key areas to look at -- or talk about in terms of
nonresidential. Along Chinden -- the north Meridian area plan that did not get adopted
that Wardle and Associates put together, as you may recall, actually showed just mixed
use regional across here and they -- you know, that group of folks thought that a state
highway, you're just going to naturally see -- do you really want residential against that.
You know, we -- right now this plan designates a small little area about ten to 15 acres
at the half mile across from Brighton's project that was approved that I mentioned
earlier, the Bainbridge, and this is based on some initial discussions with the property
owners who have control of about 300 acres in this area. And they, actually, originally,
came to us showing much more commercial, but after further research, they paired that
down. So, that commercial area does reflect their interest and kind of what they would
like to see. Do you have any feedback for us on other areas along Chinden, particularly
you know, at -- at the intersections where, you know, Ten Mile and Black Cat come in,
bearing in mind that the influence of this interchange down the line is going to be pretty
strong. Right now there is this mixed use at -- at Star, in part, to match what the city of
Star has shown, which they have shown commercial on the north side there, as Anna
mentioned earlier, but what's shown here underneath the corridor as low density
residential is really not very feasible, but you know, part of my thinking was, you know,
how much time and energy do you want spend on designating land uses and an area
that the whole goal was to preserve it. I mean there was some logic to say just don't put
any land use designation under there, you know. And particularly if it's something non-
residential.
Zaremba: I think I have expressed my opinion and it's not -- it's not etched in stone, but
it's a direction that I lean, along Eagle Road and Chinden Road and the areas along the
interstate and future McDermott, is if it becomes to be the same thing. My feeling is if
you picture those areas as having an awful lot of traffic and most of that traffic not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meetlng/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 16 of 33
actually being Meridian traffic, if they are coming through here anyhow, we ought to
figure out a way to make them stop and spend money. So, I tend to agree with the
Wardle study that says that along the Chinden corridor it's going to be a busy enough
traffic area that it may not be attractive to have residential right against it and the city
can take advantage of maybe getting some money out of the people that would pass
along it, to give them reasons to stop and leave a few dollars here. So, I -- you know,
again, to some extent it's market driven, but I certainly would not have a problem with all
of Chinden developing commercial within an eighth of a mile of Chinden and, then, I'd
go back to residential. That's just an opinion and, like I say, it's not etched in stone, it's
just --
"\
!
Hawkins~Clark: Sure. Well, I think -- I mean that would be a significant change if -- you
know, to this map if you -- I would appreciate more discussion, if that's a direction you
want to give us, because --
Rohm: Well, only with the caveat that there is not multiple ingress-egress onto
Chinden, that there would be frontage road internal to that commercial development, so
that the flow isn't impeded by development and you still have the ability to maintain
traffic speeds at 50 or 55 on Chinden as it goes through that -- that area.
Zaremba: I think with Lochsa Falls didn't we require only one access and a back-age
road or something like that? I don't think we allowed them access to Chinden.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. That's correct. Yeah. And maybe Anna wants to talk a little bit
more about the.- you know, the UDC, the Unified Development Code, was -- had a new
section added after your hearings about state highways and access and --
Canning: Commissioners, we are trying to limit access at the half miles, with backage
road and, then, you all did get to comment on it and your recommendation was for right-
in, right-out only at the quarter mile, but the Process Improvement Group has
recommended right-in, right-out, left-in. So, the only thing they have taken out is left
out. I think that the quarter mile access points will get severe opposition from ITD and I
suspect -- you know, this is my mind reading game that I do with the Council, but I
suspect Council will limit the quarter mile access. So, we have some in place to look at
that. But with regard to putting all of it mixed use, I would caution you that all of a
sudden it starts to look like Eagle Road or starts getting demands similar to Eagle Road
and you want to look at what's across the street as well. Here you have an established
one-acre lot subdivision with expensive homes. Very expensive homes on the north
side of Chinden. In this area -- you can't see it on the overhead, but the parcel pattern
in here, unless someone acquired every single parcel, piecemeal development of that
would be darn near impossible. So, you would having continual request for direct
access to Chinden. So, that actually occurs all along here. So, I would give you a
cautionary note in that area. And, then, again, look to what's across the side of the
street. These folks followed our kind of half-mile thing -- thing -- sorry. Neighborhood
center concept and put a little commercial there. Obviously, Brighton Corp held out that
60 acres in the hopes of putting commercial development at this corner, but is that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 17 of 33
appropriate. If there is residential here, a large lot residential there, medium lot
residential there, is this an appropriate location for commercial and -- or in this case
should it switch to -- shift to the half mile. Those are considerations.
Rohm: Yeah. I don't think that any of us want to see another Eagle Road. It's so
congested that it almost defeats the purpose of the lanage that's available, just because
of access from the quarter mile and other access points. And if, in fact, Chinden
develops to minimize that, maybe we just go with cross-access agreements and you still
end up with just half-mile access to Chinden and you just don't -- you don't grant a
development with access. I don't know -- you know, we will just have to see how that
goes, but I sure don't think we want another Eagle Road.
Hawkins-Clark: Would point out that this Lochsa Falls mile we actually have already no
-- we have formally accepted an application, but it has been submitted for this 40 here
at the corner of Ten Mile and Chinden and, then, there is the school and Lochsa already
has office approved here. So, this mile is, for the most part, spoken for. This mile, as
Anna just mentioned, you have that piece there that Brighton has, and, then, the mile
where Paramount is, we have already designated mixed use. And, then, the last full
mile is just between Locust Grove and Meridian Road and there is also mixed use there
and so, practically speaking, the only place we would really look to add new mixed use
would be in -- you know, in this mile -- Section 27, so--
Moe: Yeah. As I look at the map, that's basically where Brighton Corp's looking to do
something around the corner or whatever and that's about the only area that I think is
left, because you do have enough mixed use to the east. I think that would be great.
Hawkins-Clark: Another thing that we are somewhat bound by is assuming that the City
of Meridian wants to support it, is the Blueprint for Good Growth that's going on right
now. It's a regional plan that the city and county have spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars on and so far we say we want to abide by it, but one of the principles of that plan
is that if you take a city's planning area, they are designating a certain number of
population, a certain number of households, and a certain number of employment within
each area of city impact and, you know, this is the model that they are using and they
are saying here is -- here is, basically, what you have to work with based on this control
total, you know, at 2030.
Zaremba: They are giving an actual number limit or they are giving a percentage of -- a
balance?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, yeah, I mean the cities, obviously, have their -- can play with
those, but I mean there is -- they are saying here is the basic ratios. Yeah. And so for
Meridian, you know, we have to remember to take in our whole planning area in this
Blueprint for Good Growth process and by the time you start factoring in the alley for a
corridor, Silverstone, EI Dorado, Eagle Road, we start to get a little bit pinched with
where we put mixed use in commercial, frankly, in terms of that -- those numbers right
now. So, I mean I just point that out, that we -- as long as we -- if we want to honor that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 18 of 33
process, we should at least have to -- you know, we will have more information on that
in the next couple of months, but right now what's shown here is about as much mixed
use as that plan is going to accommodate.
Rohm: That's interesting.
Hawkins-Clark: Let's see. A couple other things, since we have got about 15 minutes
here. Let's put this up. The first page in your packets tonight was a sheet called North
Meridian Area individual area of city impact expansion. For lack of a better term, it just
says lower rim area, and the reason that that is in there -- a couple of the folks that have
attended tonight, this is why they are here. The property -- again, here is -- here is
Chinden. This is our more regional map, so here is the Phyllis Canal that -- basically on
the rim here. And, then, you have this area between the Boise River. As we
mentioned at the very beginning, this is -- this is an area that Eagle city currently has in
their proposed area of city impact that has not been yet approved by Ada County, but
their City Council has approved it. The request is for the city to consider including some
of this area in our area of city impact application to Ada County and their -- their
property is approximately 390 acres. If you add up all the acreage in between the river
and the canal from McDermott, you know, over to Linder, it's just under 1,500 acres.
So, their portion is about 28, 30 percent of what -- of that whole area. You know,
clearly, this is just an absolutely beautiful area down in here, of course, as you go down,
a lot of it is in the one hundred year and five hundred year flood plane. If you can go
down the street you will just see -- I was just trying to point out some of the facts of who
has jurisdiction in there. Some of the public street connectivity, flood plane issues, et
cetera. The sewer question is one that we can't answer right now. At least in detail,
because there hasn't been a study. But Eagle city is -- as part of their application, doing
a study in that area, which I understand is expected to be done reasonably soon, and
that would tell everyone -- you know, give a much better idea about sewer-ability down
there, but -- now, one thing that's for sure, if you come to Meridian you're going to have
to pump up and over the rim, so -- and we all know that. The other issues about, you
know, does it -- their statement to us was this -- you know, this property is Eagle -- I
mean it's Meridian area of city -- or area code, they feel like -- very much a part of
Meridian in terms of shopping and a trade area, you know. There is no way to get
across the Boise River, obviously, in this area, unless you go out to either Star or
Linder. So, pretty much everybody goes up to Chinden and, then, you either head east-
west or into Meridian, so --
Rohm: Do the City of Eagle's city limits currently cross the Boise River at any point?
Hawkins-Clark: Not west of Linder, but east of Linder they do.
Borup: Clear to Chinden.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. They go up to Chinden.
Zaremba: At Banbury and that stuff along there I think is all Eagle.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 19 of 33
Rohm: Okay. Okay. I'm just .. but not west of Linder. Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: That's my understanding. Yeah.
Rohm: And I guess another question -- well, if they have already crossed east of
Linder, then, do they have separate sewer facilities on the south side of the Boise River
from that which they have on the north? I'm not sure how that -- I guess that's how that
would work. You have two different sewer treatment plants or do they cross the river
with --
Hawkins-Clark: I don't know in that particular instance, Commissioner Rohm. But I
mean, you know, there is examples of boring underneath rivers, of course. I mean
there is everything, I mean aerial crossings and -- you know. Not that we would want to
do that, but -- but Eagle sewer district, they have a memorandum agreement with Boise
city, you know, to pump in that area that's along Chinden, to pump their waste to Boise
city, who actually treats it.
Rohm: Oh. Interesting.
Hawkins-Clark: You can see on this map where Eagle's area of city impact, they have
designated these uses over here.
Zaremba: I was going to ask a similar question. What we have are two barriers,
essentially. The Phyllis canal and the river. You could make an argument for stopping
your area of impact at either one of them and I was thinking, similar to Commissioner
Rohm, all right, if we were to serve all the way to the river, how is Eagle dealing with
how they cross the Phyllis canal and serve the south side, since they are basically north
of it, how are they serving the south side. We have the same question. We are south
of it, how do we serve the north side of it. But it depends on which barrier you pick. I
mean the river is a barrier and, you know, I certainly am in favor of having anybody in
Meridian that wants to be in Meridian, you know, but it's nice that they'd rather join us.
Rohm: And I don't know if it's appropriate, but I would like to know their logic, why they
would prefer Meridian over Eagle, if any -- would you like to make comment?
Zaremba: Does anybody care to comment? You do need to be on the microphone, sir,
and state your name and address, please.
Ewing: I'm John Ewing, 1500 EI Dorado --
Zaremba: Pull the microphone closer to you. Thank you.
Ewing: John Ewing. 1500 EI Dorado, Boise, Idaho. I wasn't really prepared to speak
for the two girls, but the property that they are here on is their parents rights now, the
Aldape Ranch, and the public been --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 20 of 33
Zaremba: Can we have you transfer to the hand-held microphone? I'm sorry. That
seems to be causing some problems.
Ewing: Well, anyway, I think that the main reason is they have always been part of
Meridian. Her parents have lived in Meridian, went to school in Meridian, they have a
Meridian address, Meridian phone number, and it does seem to just be a natural thing
to have -- have them still be in Meridian. Where the new proposed subdivision that is
going to hopefully go into Meridian is just above the Phyllis canal, just going straight
back. Seems to be a natural thing to be in Meridian, even though the sewer does need
to be pumped up. I believe that probably getting sewer up is as easy as getting it
across the river. Their east boundary is Spur Wing Golf course for part of their property
and, then, you know, that would lend itself to a very nice subdivision down there they
feel. The other thing is -- and I think it come up in one of the workshops, either Peggy
or Sherry had brought up that they do have river frontage back, you know, on their short
north end of their property and it was even talked about maybe, you know, putting some
of that ground down there as a park right on the river and I don't know -- you know, I
think that that's probably the only place that -- well, I know that's the only place that
Meridian comes close to the river. Another thing is that there no real access down
there, other than coming from the south end. There is -- you know, I see there is a
proposal for McDermott going through, which is a couple miles west and, then, Linder is
the next one with, you know, quite a bit of property between there. I think this whole
thought process of when their neighbors up on top have wanted a pretty elaborate
subdivision up there and a roadway and everything and that's a natural place to get
access down there and continue the nice subdivision atmosphere down there on river in
that farm ground. We have had a little conversation with the neighbor to the west and,
like so many people in that area, Dr. Orme is older and retired right now and his first
comment was is I don't want anything to change. You know, he doesn't want anymore
growth in Meridian or Ada County or state of Idaho. Although after visiting with him, he
knows that he's not going to get his wishes and, you know, he supports going into the --
shared with me that he would support going into the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. So,
I believe right now -- you know, I mentioned the phone number, the zip code and
everything. I think that they are in the Meridian fire district, too. So, they are already
getting, you know, services from Meridian. And so I don't know if I did a good job of
speaking for the girls, but would you like to add anything? No. Did I answer the
question or did I just ramble on like I usually do?
Zaremba: You answered my question.
Borup: Just a clarification for mine. I think I understand it. You're saying you'd be in
favor of going clear to the river?
Ewing: Yes. That's -- and the Aldape property does go clear to the river.
Borup: So, it's south -- north of the canal down below the rim?
\:
¡
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 21 of 33
Ewing: It's all north of the canal. Yes, it is.
Borup: Okay. I'd particularly like the idea of a park on the river.
Rohm: Well, I like that, too.
Zaremba: Neat idea. Yeah. Thank you, sir.
Rohm: I guess I -- my question of staff would be was there a particular reason why staff
did not consider the inclusion north of the canal? Is -- just because city of Eagle had
already kind of had their eyes on it or --
Canning: Partially. The expansion of the area of city impact was really prompted by --
at the request of property owners that suggested taking it to the rim. So, that's as far as
we went. The City Council, in general, and the Mayor, had wanted to support requests
for annexation. So, this one has come up fairly recently, compared to the other ones.
But it was a disputed area between Star and Eagle, I believe, but Ada County gave it to
Eagle. But our fire district, the rural fire district has always been very concerned that it
is in their fire district and the way -- this whole fire district issue is a little interesting,
because Eagle fire district is not a part of Eagle city, yet, when Eagle city annexes, the
Eagle Fire District claims that they, then, have jurisdiction over areas that the city of
Eagle annexes. My understanding is that our rural fire department has -- I don't know if
they have taken it to court, but there is the legal issue of this in some formal manner, is
what I understand. So, I don't know where it is in the process or anything like that. So,
they are trying to get back all the areas that -- in the Eagle Fire District that were -- that
are their rural fire district, really. So, they have always been very concerned about this
area and it's important to them that it stays in the rural fire district or in the city fire
district at some point for their funding. We have the only fire district that is both a rural
and a city fire district and share resources. So, the rural fire district is entirely
dependent upon the areas that are outside the city, but are inside their fire district and
as other fire districts come and take that away, basically, they are losing all their taxable
ground. They are going out of existence. So, it's a big concern to the fire district. So,
certainly, for that reason it would be important. Also, the library district follows the river.
There are a number of other districts that follow the river and are not quite as important
sometimes, but there are other ones. Now, I think I'm rambling. Sorry.
Zaremba: Oh, I certainly would support aligning all of those -- you know, aligning our
area of impact with districts that relate to us. I wasn't aware that the zip code went that
far north, but that makes sense as well. Not that the postal service is right about
everything, but if they at sometime determined that this is an area that's easy for them
to service, then, it would seem like police and fire might think in the same boundaries. I
could see including it in our area of impact. Any other opinions?
Moe: Oh, I would definitely agree and for the point that it already has been pretty much
Meridian, thereafter, I would rather just see it stay that way as well. I guess the only --
the only point I make, the area that we took out that is on -- at Linder, that area, you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 22 of 33
know, that those homeowners, they are the ones that do not want to be in Meridian
itself, I mean it would be nice to have been able just basically to follow Linder down to
the river and, then, take it across. I mean -- but, again, I would definitely like to see us
go to the river, if, in fact -- I mean based upon the report here, it seems like everything is
Meridian's.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, it's getting close to 9:00 and we only have two other
people in the audience that didn't speak. You might just ask them if they wanted to --
Rohm: You're welcome to.
Zaremba: We have to have you speak on the microphone, though. We would like to
have your input. Thank you. State your name and address, please.
Spriggel: My name is Robert Spriggel. My wife Judy. We live on McDermott Road --
west side of McDermott Road between Ustick and McMillan. We are just interested in
what's going on and just trying to find out what the take out is for that half mile and
what's the impact going to be on us in the future. We own this small property there,
about 16 acres. So, it's a learning thing for us right now just to find out what's going on.
Rohm: Were you folks at the last --
Spriggel: No.
Zaremba: The open house.
Spriggel: Did not know about it.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. Thank you.
Spriggel: That was another question. Is there a method to notify property owners in the
area or --
Rohm: I think all of these meetings are noticed in the newspaper, but I don't think each
individual property owner, when the scope is this big, gets personal notification.
Zaremba: I think there was some effort to notify people for that open house, wasn't
there?
Hawkins-Clark: There was, Commissioner, and I have added the Spriggels to our list,
because Judy called and requested I think, so -- we have maintained a list for anyone
who is interested, but have not, correct, notified everyone. That meeting, everybody
who owned -- I think we had to make a point -- we had to make a cutoff point
somewhere. I think we chose 30 acres or more were notified.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 23 of 33
Spriggel: And just what I have picked up here, it sounds like the proposed Highway 16
coming down McDermott Road, it sounds like first that that is the preferred road,
possibly, and it sounds like it's going to be a fairly major highway with limited access.
So, I guess what I don't understand or need to ask is if you own property that only has
access on that road, how would you get access or what becomes of your property if you
can't get onto this new highway? And one more question. How far out is that? Are we
talking then years, 20 years, or five years?
Rohm: Those are all pretty good questions.
Zaremba: Ten is probably the closest, 20 might even be -- Anna.
Canning: Let's see. We will try the big question first. The timing. It does seem to be
part of the push of the governor to get his north-south road, so I think there will be
emphasis on that. Probably be between 2010 and 2020 is as far as I'm willing to guess,
but probably on the closer side of that, I would imagine. Regarding the access, that is a
challenge and probably what will need to happen is that as the properties either north or
south of you develop, we will require a frontage road be provided parallel to Highway
16, either -- either to allow -- either right next to the right of way, so that it's just road --
frontage road and, then, Highway 16, or to allow some development in between. But
we will just require those stubs as they go down. So, you'll probably have to wait until
the property -- intervening properties either going north or south develop. If you're right
smack in the middle of the section, you're kind at the mercy of folks, so -- where you're
at, so -- or it could go east or west, you know, there is a possibility there. But it is one of
those cases where you probably have a wait for the intervening properties to develop.
Spriggel: The highway is to be somewhat like a freeway or a five lane or--
Canning: It is -- I think right now we are assuming it's at least five way limited access
freeway, so there would be access a Chinden and at Ustick. And, actually, as ITD does
their studies, they may be proposing to construct frontage roads for those properties
along McDermott. I -- they don't know yet. But that could be a part of their work
program.
Spriggel: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you for coming.
Zaremba: Are there other issues you wish to have opinions about or have we touched
most of them?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess to summarize a couple of your key ones, you are at this
point in support of keeping the four square miles in. I heard a general consensus on
that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14,2005
Page 24 of 33
Zaremba: I believe we have consensus leaning that way, yes.
Hawkins-Clark: And the McDermott alignment is something the Commission is in
support of.
Zaremba: For Highway 16.
Hawkins-Clark: For Highway 16.
Zaremba: As opposed to -- it's probably too late to do it anywhere else.
Hawkins-Clark: Well -- and the idea of dividing the communities, too, I think is just --
And we will certainly approach the police and that, but I mean if -- as you well know, I
mean on the few instances where the police department has been asked for specific
comments -- I mean even on applications in our area of impact, they -- they are
stretched so thin they would prefer to annex even those, so --
Zaremba: Well, at some point I suppose the solution is to have a sub station out that
way or something, I guess.
Hawkins-Clark: Taking the boundary to the river. I heard general support. The request
-- certainly these -- from my standpoint, you know, it does not make sense to include
just one property, I mean we would want to include that whole chunk.
Zaremba: Basically from Linder to Can-Ada? The river from Linder to Can-Ada?
Rohm: I personally like that idea a lot.
Borup: Especially if we are talking about a park down there.
Zaremba: That could be very attractive.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I mean just to clarify, Star, their application that's on September
1 st, is over to McDermott. So, I don't think we would go as far as any further west than
that. Of course, even that -- I mean I think it's very -- I just definitely want to point out
that -- that I'm 95 percent certain Eagle, you know, would -- they will oppose it, just so
you know. I mean that will be a point of discussion, but Star -- and maybe even where
the Highway 16 alignment ends up, you know, is maybe even another more logical
place. I think Anna mentioned that. So, the difficulty with that, of course, is we are not
going to know that for several years, so --
Borup: So, basically, what you're saying, just extend the area that's north of Chinden
now, just extend it to the river.
:ï
I
I
,
Rohm: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 25 of 33
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: We'd like to see you consider that for sure.
Moe: Yes.
Borup: Now, while we are on Highway 16, has there been any discussion of the tie-in
from Ten Mile, other than a pencil line on a map?
Canning: I'm not sure I understand the question. There would be a new intersection,
there would be a new interchange at McDermott is what they are proposing.
Borup: Oh. McDermott and the freeway.
Canning: Yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Canning: And that would be the one that Nampa might contest, asking to drag it more
toward Star.
Borup: So, that would eliminate the tie in from Ten Mile that was discussed previously.
Canning: Correct. Ten Mile would be their own interchange and just--
Borup: So, you're talking about having the road swing over?
Rohm: I'm not opposed to having both Ten Mile and McDermott.
Borup: That's what Anna just said.
Canning: Yes. That's the proposal.
Borup: Ten Mile would still happen first, right?
Canning: Right.
Zaremba: But the issue Commissioner Borup is raising is there have -- there has been
discussion that the extension of Highway 16 would be Ten Mile and 1--
Borup: Well, the ones I have seen earlier would be west of Ten Mile, but, then, there
would be a tie-in to it.
Zaremba: Yeah. Or coming down Black Cat and having a coat hanger over to Ten
Mile. I think we are substituting trying to focus attention on McDermott for all of that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetingNVorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 26 of 33
Borup: Much better idea.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Canning: All of those discussions have pretty much gone by the wayside. I think with
the passing of the GARVEE bond proposal, we focused on a separate new interchange
for Highway 16 extension.
Borup: Don't have all that interior mile right of way to worry about.
Moe: Right.
Zaremba: It would be tough to get the right of way along Ten Mile or Black Cat to do it.
Hawkins-Clark: And a general point, looking at more mixed use, possibly based on
absorption. And just to clarify again, we -- assuming that the City Council approves it,
we have asked for this market study or I guess Anna just needs to approve it. So, that
would tell us, at least generally from one market analyst, what kind of this area would
take on, but I think that we had talked about, you know, that Chinden corridor and at
least in the one square mile adding more, but do you want to give us more direction
there?
Moe: Well, I know that Commissioner Zaremba said he'd just as soon see quite a bit
more there.
Zaremba: I'm not stuck on it, but I'd load it up with as much commercial as we can sell.
Moe: I'm not so sure that I'm opposed to the way it is, other than the fact that I am sure
that we are going to see something between Ten Mile and Black Cat on the south side
with Brighton Corp's development there. I think at that point that's enough, but that's my
opinion.
Borup: And I'm probably closer to Commissioner Zaremba that I think, you know,
whatever the market will bear. I'd like to see some of that market driven, but I feel very
strongly about Chinden and the access points, that it needs to be limited to the half mile
and with frontage or backage roads. So, you know, I don't think we would want some of
the problems we have on Eagle. And this is the time to do something about that.
Zaremba: Amen to that.
Rohm: Yeah. I think we all agree on that.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: That we don't want a repeat of Eagle on Chinden and as long as we do that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 27 of 33
Zaremba: And access points is the biggest part of it.
Borup: And if we limit the access points, then, the developers need to decide if it's a
viable project for them to have commercial there or not. So, what I'm saying is to have
flexibility on the Comp Plan designations that it can change as demand may change.
Moe: Brad, did you not say, though -- don't remember the name of it, but for good
growth?
Hawkins-Clark: Blueprint.
Moe: Okay. That, basically, we are nearing the point enough mixed use for that plan
the way it's designed.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. That is what Compass and their modeling has come back with
so far. That's what I was told last -- about three weeks ago.
Moe: Okay.
I
~
Zaremba: I could see when they consider the cities that are around the perimeter of the
Treasure Valley, I can see that that could be a logical -- you know, to state, okay, here
is your mix and that's what you ought to do. Meridian being right in the middle of all this
and being the receiver of all of their traffic, is a little different animal and I'm -- of course,
I don't know what the numbers are and how restrictive they are, but I -- you know, we
could be the commercial center for the whole valley and that would be far out of whack
with their numbers, probably. But we have an opportunity for Meridian that -- you know,
not that I want to make it us against the other cities, but I would want to know how
limiting they want to be. I think Meridian has an opportunity to be a commercial center
for the whole valley and that may throw those numbers off. Again, a personal opinion.
Moe: Actually, I think that's a very good point. That's a very good point.
Hawkins-Clark: I think one thing you have not seen -- was there anything else on that
point? I mean -- this is, obviously, an ongoing discussion, but --
Canning: I just wanted to point out that a huge problem we have with our Comp Plan is
that the developers see mixed use and think commercial and you all are doing exactly
the same thing, which is fine, but if it's -- if you really are thinking of commercial on
Chinden -- now, maybe we should consider it a commercial designation, rather than a
mixed used designation. That's alii was going to say.
Rohm: I think that's a great point. It certainly clears things up a lot when we receive
applications.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/WOrkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 28 of 33
Canning: We have mixed use and if what they really want is commercial, then, let's call
it what it is.
Moe: But at the same time, I think there has been some developments that have come
through that they have wanted to do more commercial within the mixed use and we
have been able to explain to them, no, we do want to see the mixed use. I look at the
project there on Eagle and Pine, you know, they were wanting to go a lot more
commercial and we did require to do more mixed use in there.
Canning: I just wanted to make sure you had the conversation, because I was hearing
the two used interchangeably, so I wanted to make sure.
Zaremba: I think what I would like to explore, among us or among you, or whatever, is
sticking with the mixed use and traditional neighborhood theory, but maybe along
Chinden, instead of making it radial, so that you maybe have a commercial and, then,
down to retail, down to office, down to multi-family, down to single family in an
expanding circle, that we make that lineal. All along Chinden the first 300 feet from
Chinden is commercial, really commercial, and, then, the next 300 feet -- you just take
your expanding circle and make it lineal, so that by the time you're a quarter of a mile
from Chinden you're into multi-family and then -- I mean it's the same concept and
within a larger area it's mixed use. Just a thought. I mean it --
Rohm: That's what I envisioned.
Zaremba: I think all of those things do need to happen. I'm just not sure -- you know,
I'm not sure that Chinden lends itself -- I'm not sure I would want to live in a residence
on Chinden. It's going to be a busy street. But I think incorporating all those mixed
uses within some distance from it is something to explore.
Hawkins-Clark: Thinking about it from a transportation design standpoint, which we
didn't talk about tonight, but which is part of this application, in terms of where are
collectors going to go, our new collectors, you know, there is some logic to that in terms
of running your Chinden frontage or back-age road, you know, and, then, having maybe
another collector system that runs through there, you know. There is various patterns of
development that planning purists have come up with over the years and, you know,
some of them are more concentric and some of them are more boxy looking and --
Zaremba: Well, my inclination would be to stick with the circle idea at other
intersections. Ustick -- you know, along Ustick I -- the same circle idea would appeal to
me. I just see Chinden as a different -- something different, I guess.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. In terms of residential, I mean there is numerous examples, of
course, of residential doing quite well on state highways. I mean you can drive down
Eagle Road and you get almost into Eagle -- you know, into Eagle and I don't know that
they are losing dramatic property values down there just because they are next to
Highway 55.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 29 of 33
Zaremba: That's true. The buffers are pretty.
Rohm: Yeah. They have just taken that 300-foot and put it into a forest.
Zaremba Yeah. It's a berm.
Rohm: It's a berm.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Eagle -- yeah. Well, you know, on Chinden I mean you have
Yorgason's project, Castleberry or whatever it's called, you know, on the north side of
Chinden there. Eagle does have a 75 foot wide buffer requirement to help
accommodate that, but -- okay. The two things, I guess, to point out before we move
onto the next steps here, the draft policies that will actually be heart and soul of the text
amendment, you haven't seen yet. Frankly, probably the most significant ones are
going to be related to the preservation corridor. You know, a lot of the rest of them are
going to be almost identical. But, in particular, how do we -- as the folks here tonight,
you know, those people that reside -- if this moves on, you approve it, City Council
approves it, and we are basically saying to ITD as a city, this is where we prefer this
alignment to be. So, you have in that area -- I don't know what happened to our map,
but in that area -- in that crooked area there are 95 -- again, following in there, there is
95 parcels of record, 74 property owners. Twenty-six of those parcels are zoned R-R,
which means ten acre minimum and 69 of them are zoned RUT, which means five acre
minimums. While the majority of the land area is, obviously, in the bigger parcels, the
vast majority of them are actually small. The median parcel size in that area -- I just
love doing these numbers. 4.8 acres. So, I guess what I'm getting at is we need to
come up with some policies that deal with this area in helping us to preserve it and, you
know, there is a couple different approaches we can go with. One is we would actually
say in our Comp Plan, dear Ada County, we want to have an area of city impact
agreement with you, but we want to amend it and we are asking you to -- instead of
allowing one house per ten acres or one house per five acres, we are asking you to say
one house per 30 acres or one house per 40 acres -- you know, sort of control it more
on a density -- now there is maybe -- there is legal issues, things there, because they --
there is a right that people have to do something with their property that you can't take
away, unless you either buy it or, otherwise, legally, you know, preserve it. There is
many different types of preservation methods for corridors. Unfortunately, ITD being so
fiscally strapped, you know, a lot of those do have to do with money and -- but I guess
I'm just pointing out that we haven't come up with the specifics and if you have thoughts,
not that we are going to talk about all that tonight, but we -- that's one key point of
discussion in terms of how we do that.
Borup: Basically, you're saying no development until ITD decides on the alignment. Is
that basically it?
Hawkins-Clark: Within the scope of the law. I mean --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 30 of 33
Borup: Yes.
accomplish.
No.
I understand that.
But that's probably what we are trying to
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Exactly. I mean ITD -- I think the City of Meridian should work
with ITD to help them limit the amount of money it's going to cost to purchase that land
and --
Borup: Exactly. And that's why people always complain about planning from 20, 30
years ago, because those type of things weren't done. You know, this is the time to do
that and I feel real strong about right of way preservation or in this case it would be
limiting development until that's decided. Once it's decided and the right of way is
determined what they need, then, it's whatever needs to -- whatever can happen.
Zaremba: The comment I was going to make is the issues that we face with trying to
preserve McDermott as a corridor and make it ITD's default choice, even though they
say they aren't going to make a decision until they have studied everything, we would
face those same issues ten fold if we wanted to focus on Black Cat, probably 20 fold if
we wanted to focus on Ten Mile. I mean the three possibilities -- I mean if you started
back ten years or 20 years ago, Ten Mile was the logical choice. Well, since nothing
happened during that time, the choice moves and, yes, we do need to do something to
help the property owners. I mean we can't just say, no, you can't do anything with your
property. That's not fair. Something does have to be done. But that's not unique to
McDermott. We would have had to have done that anywhere else we did it and, as
Commissioner Borup points out, at this point the cheapest place to do that is
McDermott, because it's almost -- you know, it's out of fiscal realm to probably to do it at
what -- on the places that would have been a good choice 20 years ago.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yeah. If we--
Zaremba: So, it isn't that this creates a unique problem, we would have had this
problem no matter where we were trying to steer this.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. If we knew the exact alignment that would, obviously, help
things a lot and it would impact fewer people and, you know, there is things like just
excessive setbacks that you can do, you know, to keep people out of the actual right of
way itself, but when it's a mile wide, setback really isn't a method. So, there needs to
be some other options. So, that's one big area that you haven't seen that we will do
some more thinking on and get something back to you. The other key piece that you
haven't seen is a collector map and some transit -- a little bit more detail on transit and
some policies there. So, one question for you is knowing that you haven't seen those
two things and we haven't talked about them, how -- would you like to schedule another
workshop? Are you comfortable that just getting those two things in a formal application
and setting them for a hearing -- how would you like to proceed?
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 31 of 33
Moe: Probably myself would probably like to have another workshop and be able to see
that. I would anticipate -- are we, then, anticipating making the changes to the river and
a few other things with this plan at that point?
Borup: Well, I think that was the consensus from the Commission.
Moe: Yes.
Borup: The other information that would be coming you said would be the
transportation information and ~-
Hawkins-Clark: And the policies related to the preservation corridor.
Borup: Okay. Aren't those -- but most of things could be presented at the beginning of
a Public Hearing, though.
Hawkins-Clark: They could. I think it's just how much would you like to talk about it
before you get into a Public Hearing setting.
Zaremba: My instinct probably would go with Commissioner Moe. I like to be more
prepared at a Public Hearing and I probably would be in favor of having one more
workshop, even if it were a short one, just to feel more prepared before we went into the
Public Hearing.
Borup: That makes sense. That's probably one we could do prior to a scheduled
meeting even.
Zaremba: Possible. Yeah. Have a pre-meeting for a half hour or something.
Moe: I think that would be workable.
Rohm: Yeah. I like that idea. Come in at 6:00 and we will have a workshop from 6:00
to 7:00 and, then, start our regularly scheduled P&Z meeting at that time.
Borup: Staff would probably like that better, too.
~,
;
,~
'!
Zaremba: Yeah. The one question I would ask -- and I'll betray the fact that I moved
here after the interstate was built. There are certainly people around that would
remember the process that was gone through in deciding the alignment for that and
what happened to the property owners that suddenly had an interstate going to run right
through the middle of their property. Is there any way to tap that knowledge? I don't
even know if that's a logical question, but I mean this is -- it's not a new subject, it's just
a new location.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yeah. I mean my first thought is probably be better to go for a
jurisdiction that has dealt with it more recently, you know, because there has been --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting/Workshop
July 14, 2005
Page 32 of 33
there is new tools that have come into play over the last 30 years that we can use,
probably, that they didn't have when the 1-84 was going through, but --
Borup: In this case we are talking about a section line road, just increasing the right of
way, isn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: Not necessarily.
Rohm: Well, that's why a half mile--
Borup: You're saying impact studies could designate it somewhere else, other than on -
- all right.
Canning: ITD is forced to look at more than one location, but the practical fact is that if
we preserve a corridor right on McDermott, all of a sudden in their ERR is going to
make -- it's going to make it look really good to be right on McDermott, because we
preserved that corridor. So, ITD has acknowledged that they have to look at either side,
but that the decisions that the City of Meridian makes regarding this will have a great
deal of influence on the eventual results or those studies.
Borup: But the study is not going to show that it makes more sense to run it a third or a
quarter mile in from the section line --
Canning: They have to look at that.
Borup: Right. Okay.
Canning: But if there is a corridor preserved right at McDermott, then, the likelihood of a
third of a mile off McDermott in the approved location is nil, I mean. Or minimal.
Borup: Okay. Well, I mean that's the difference between this -- or what I saw of this
and the freeway. The freeway don't believe followed an existing road at all. Wait a
minute. Or did it. Was that the old highway?
Rohm: The only part that I remember is from Meridian Road into Boise and Overland
was the route that my family always took into Boise from Meridian on in and the freeway
surplanted that. Well, Franklin was Highway 30 --
Borup: And I think in the way of -- clear to Mountain Home was out there passed
Micron and that road was I think how we headed onto Mountain Home on.
Rohm: Did the freeway go through Meridian first and, then, finished out at Boise? Is
what -- and you get off the freeway at Meridian and, then, you had to either go north to
Franklin or south to Overland and -- to finish the route into Boise? I think that's what
happened. Because I can remember that we would get off and drive Overland on into
Boise back in the '60s or whenever that was. A long time ago.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetingllNorkshop
July 14,2005
Page 33 of 33
Borup: It might have still been a highway, but it was different than a section -- it's
obviously not a section line road, was -- I guess was the only reason I even brought that
up.
Hawkins-Clark: We will have it all figured out at your next meeting.
Moe: All right.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, we will go ahead and incorporate some of these changes
into the map, get some more information to you on the policies, do some research on
maybe somebody who was involved with 1-84 and maybe even Eagle Road, which
would be more similar to McDermott and, you know, see if we can get some lessons
learned for you and we will set a 6:00 o'clock workshop, hopefully within the next month,
before either your first meeting in August or your second meeting in August; is that --
Rohm: Works for me.
Zaremba: Works for me. I know the second meeting in August, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay will not be here. She will be here for the first meeting, if that makes a
difference. I think she'd like to be included.
Hawkins-Clark: We will shoot for that.
Zaremba: Anything else we need to say or do? I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:32 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special MeetinglWorkshop
July 14, 2005
Page 34 of 33
APPROVED:
6 I ß I os
DATE APPROVED
DAVID
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., qTY
-